User talk:Chzz/Archive 33

The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.

Deletion Question

Hey Chzz,

I was wondering what I can do to not have this deleted. D021680 (talk) 06:02, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You need to show "significant coverage in independent, reliable sources" - see WP:VRS. What that typically means is, some newspaper articles about the website. News websites are generally OK too, as long as they're not connected to the site, and are well-respected. So, that excludes user-generated content, such as blog-like sites.

When assessing something like this, the first thing I do is, look in Google news archives - ie, this - and, as you can see, there's nothing there.

So - really, we're looking for evidence of press-coverage, and not press-releases, but something independent.

The other two articles you mention should also probably be deleted, if they cannot be fixed. But the existence of other articles isn't a good reason for adding another. Those were both created over 4 years ago, and standards change; the fact they haven't been deleted yet probably just means nobody has checked them - whereas new articles come in for more scrutiny. Chzz ► 06:14, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the response Chzz.

So this doesn't fill the notability requirements, essentially? But I've had notable musicians and autheros write for the site as well as notable artists who've been interviewed exstensively for the site. Also, while I can't find anything in the google archives either, the site has been mentioned in notable newspapers and magazines. Both occasions, those were in print. So what can we do to make this entry legit? Please let me know and thank you for your time. D021680 (talk) 23:33, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It probably isn't notable, but I cannot say definitively, because there could be off-line coverage that I do not know about. The Google News archive [2] indicates to me that it isn't notable. However, offline sources are acceptable; the question is, whether or not there is significant coverage - typically, that'd be three or more separate, reasonably substantial articles about it - not passing mentions.

The actual content of the site - notable musicians and authors writing on it - isn't relevent; we need evidence of other, independent sources writing about it. It's like...if I publish a book - that doesn't mean the book is notable. It only becomes notable if people write reviews of it, people write about it, on reputable sites or newspapers/magazines. Chzz ► 18:01, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Murder of Julia Martha Thomas

Thanks very much for your help at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Murder of Julia Martha Thomas/archive1 and on the article itself. I've left you some comments on the FAC page. Is there any chance that you might be able to say whether or not you support the nomination? Prioryman (talk) 11:56, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that. I'll try and find some time to read it over - I didn't get right through it. Should be within a few days, if not today. Chzz ► 12:33, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for The First Domino

On 6 August 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article The First Domino, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the writing of the English play, The First Domino, was inspired by its author's injury in a 1999 nail bomb attack in Soho? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template talk:Did you know/The First Domino.You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 00:04, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

RT

Hi. Thanks for your explanations. However, as I already explain, the redirection is wrong. In es:WP we don´t keep wrong rd, no matter who "cheap" could they be, because is better nothing to point to a wrong concept. As I told you before, I just came to request for the article, so write myself the stubb/article I request (because my english is not good enough) seems not to be realistic (or logic). As you did the rd and know the procedures, please be so nice to undoit. Cheers. --Andreateletrabajo (talk) 17:50, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK - it has been deleted. I sought deletion under our 'speedy delete, G7 - "Author requests deletion; If requested in good faith and provided that the only substantial content" - and that worked.

Now, if you are interested in writing a stub on it, I'd be very happy to help. I can easily fix any language problems - your English is certainly good enough to contribute here, and I'd enjoy helping, if I could. For a 'stub' here, we would only need perhaps 3 lines, and 3 refs; the following, assuming the sources check out, would be a perfectly acceptable article;

'''Somebody''' is a pop singer/whatever from someplace.<ref> http://www.somenewspaper.com/somearticle </ref> They had a hit single with "something" in 2010. <ref> http://www.somechartthing.com </ref> Somebody appeared at Some Festival in 2010. <ref> http://www.somefestival.com/giglist </ref>

I'm always available to help out, if I can. Best, Chzz ► 19:04, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Bureaucrat removal of adminship policy

Discussion re closure, now moot, I think

Hi,

I don't understand why you have closed Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Bureaucrat removal of adminship policy in the way you have, it was about, if removal rights were granted, what is the policy for using that right. For example there does not appear to be consensus to support it's use in Emergencies. Mt king ^(edits) 01:33, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Going just by the numbers, 120ish to 30 is a pretty strong consensus... I didn't take a read through the specific arguments raised, though. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 01:38, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Since you put your rationale on the first RfC, Chzz, if I were you, I would have explicitly stated the three situations for 'crat removal which seem to have consensus—inactive admins, self request, and ArbCom request. Your close as it is uses the word "uncontroversial" again and again, but "controversial" is subjective—ArbCom requests are generally uncontroversial, unless you're the admin being desyssopped, in which it case it's controversial to you. May I request that you make that modification so the result of the RfC isn't at all ambiguous? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 02:11, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy with a generic trust in our 'crats to "do the right thing", without too much specificity, and I felt that was the opinion of the consensus. This is contentions, of course, and I greatly value your opinion; happy to discuss it further BUT I do think, the tech could be dealt with separately - ie, if granted the permission on a 'use good sense' basis, then other restrictions could follow. Do you disagree? Chzz ► 02:15, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But "use good sense" wasn't, to my mind, the consensus of the second RfC. That outlined three sets of circumstances (ArbCom, self request, inactivity) under which the community are happy for 'crats to remove the admin bit and one in particular (the poorly defined "emergencies") in which they are not. It was a good idea to bundle the second close into the first, but I feel the current wording of your rationale is a little too vague and doesn't quite reflect the consensus of the second RfC. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 02:31, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Er... No, the second RfC was about just that, when the community believes they should use that turst - the first one actually makes that point clear when it says "The question of when they would be permitted to do so will be determined by a policy. A parallel proposal about policy questions is under discussion at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Bureaucrat removal of adminship policy". Mt king ^(edits) 02:20, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Sorry - what is "turst" in this context? Chzz ► 02:21, 7 August 2011 (UTC)~~ - Struck; I guess it was typo of 'trust'. OK, hold on. Chzz ► 02:26, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

HJ Mitchell, my overbearing thoughts were a) if we can't trust a 'crat, who can we trust, and b) specifics (pol, guidelines) need to develop organically. "use good sense" being a good start. Chzz ► 02:35, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also somewhat confused here. There were two RFCs running in concert specifically so the situations where the technical ability may be used from a policy standpoint could be specifically and concisely delineated. Why then, do you think they should instead "develop organically", when the four specific situations discussed each have at least 80% support? –xeno^talk 03:29, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All four cases are covered in the consensus acceptance; the first two are explicit - Bureaucrats may remove the "administrator" user right from an editor's account if the editor is deemed inactive, Bureaucrats may remove the "administrator" user right from an editor's account if self-requested by the administrator.. For self-requests, the power to perform the action is granted, and the decision to choose to perform it lies with the 'crat. As for "Arbcom may request local wiki users with specific rights exercise those rights" - that is nothing new. They have a new right and, as was/is always the case, arbs can ask them to use it. Chzz ► 03:41, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I just think a lot of folks would be more comfortable seeing them each closed as separate discussions, for greater certainty. But thanks for explaining, it makes more sense now than on my initial read. –xeno^talk 03:47, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agree they need to be closed as two distinct RfC's (obviously had the first one gone the other way the second would have been moot) Mt king ^(edits) 03:51, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Formal request to reconsider your closing rational

I would like you to consider clarifying your closing rational on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Bureaucrat removal of adminship policy to specify address each of the four questions. I do not think the fourth of them reached consensus given it received less support than any of the others and received more opposes's than the other three combined. Mt king ^(edits) 03:40, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If necessary, I'm happy to do so, but I ask you: can't we apply common sense? If we do not trust the judgement of our 'crats, who do we trust?

I found "consensus that bureaucrats should be granted the technical ability to remove the administrator permission". Is all. Chzz ► 03:43, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) I think that you should, and I think that this is one area that needs to start with a formal guideline, that then can, as time goes by and with use and consenus "develop organically". Mt king ^(edits) 03:47, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree there is clear consensus they should be granted the "technical ability", my issue is the guildlines/policy surrounding it's use. Mt king ^(edits) 03:49, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)

@Xeno,If separate assessment would help, I could revisit it; what I hope is that normal procedure in amending policies/guidelines can refer to the decision to grant the technical ability, ie, that is what consensus showed - that they can and should have the ability; that's why there was so much emphasis on that finding. I don't believe it is realistic to draw specific policy guidance from the RfC itself; I think policy/guides can develop via the ability via the normal process.

I considered my remit in closing to be, to determine if the community felt it appropriate that "bureaucrats should be granted the technical ability to remove the administrator permission" (or not) - that was the specific RfC proposal. I felt that was a 'yes', and the that the precise details of cases where they would do so was unnecessary to the closure, because - given their remit - the precise details could be determined simply through normal editorial process. However, if more specific guides should be developed directly as closure, I would be happy to reconsider. Chzz ► 04:00, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The second RfC was just that there were (at the end) four distinct policies that were being commented on. Mt king ^(edits) 04:05, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Per your edit summary "Formal request to reconsider your closing rational" [3] - yep; I've withdrawn; [4]. Cheers, Chzz ► 04:10, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for that. Mt king ^(edits) 04:14, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Normal procedure for policy development can flow from the results of the policy RFC (which was intentionally separated out from the technical question so that a policy would be in place when the technical ability was added) - no need to start from square one when there is already fertile ground rich with consensus for the starting policy. Thanks for backing up a step - I would have no objection to you taking another run at the policy RFC as a distinct bird (with four different feathers to pluck), though it would also makes sense to have a different pair of eyes for balance. –xeno^talk 04:30, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just adding my mite - I think, in situations where it's a case of "Obvious close is obvious", how the close is explicitly (or not) worded isn't really relevant. Obvious close was obvious. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 05:35, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't often agree with Chzz, but this close is one of the most solidly well argued, well done, and well explained closures I have seen ever in wikipedia, and I have been around for a bazillion wikiyears, been involved (not punished!) with Arbcom, hundreds of AfD as a participant, nom, and article starter, and what not. In short, I have seen every combo there is to be seen of discussions that need some sort of closing, and this one had humor, intelligence, respect for the topic and for those in the other side of the consensus, and furthermore, it set a solid basis to understand what the community is doing to anyone un-involved in the discussion looking back at it. While I am a firm believer in talking through everything, and that WP:CCC, even the topic being closed was not a big deal. This whole thread is why we all should take a deep breath, remember what we are not and be a little less self important. Just sayin'--Cerejota (talk) 08:10, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But you should have this one.

		The Special Barnstar
		For being willing to look at your closure again. Mt king ^(edits) 04:29, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Considerable cowbell

		The Considerable Cowbell Barnstar
		For a great closing at here.--Cerejota (talk) 09:56, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, both. c/f [5]. Chzz ► 19:52, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Swarcliffe

This has been a very unpleasant experience: trying to help improve an article which was listed on the Yorkshire Wikiproject page as a GA candidate, along with a couple of other editors, and finding almost every suggestion slapped down by an editor who considers that they WP:OWN the page. Among improvements I made which didn't get removed were changes to the use of the {{convert}} so it no longer gave inappropriately precise conversions for approximate measurements.

The editor's attitude to other editors has been confrontational throughout.

One problem is his lack of sensitivity to language. He insisted for some time on the phrasing: "As he had never married the family estate was later taken over by the Leeds Corporation." To me, that implies that the council acquired it by some sort of compulsion, and also that this was an inevitable consequence of the man not having been married. Another editor and I both suggested variations such as "He never married and the family estate was later acquired by the Leeds Corporation" but the editor preferred his own version, repeatedly. The talk page discussion under "Rubbish" shows another case, where "Although" was inappropriate. Early versions of the politics section started "Since the boundary changes—which took effect before the 2010 General Election—Swarcliffe has been part of the Leeds East constituency, which includes Cross Gates, Whinmoor, Seacroft, Gipton, Harehills, Killingbeck, Temple Newsam, Halton Moor, Halton, Whitkirk, Colton and Austhorpe.", which suggests to me that Swarcliffe was not part of this constituency before 2010. My attempts to change this were reverted, and my attempt to discuss on the talk page ignored until an unhelpful and illogical reply ("This article is not about political areas. Leeds East has its own page, unless one works for Leeds City Council.") about 20 hours later.

The editor's response to questions raised on the talk page was variously silence, "Read the rules", implications that I had COI by working for the council or the labour party, and archiving the entire talk page. He later accused me on my talk page of being "destructive, and hav[ing] no interest in co-operative work. ". I considered reporting him for 3 reverts (3? how many?) last night but couldn't face the hassle of the procedure. He has reverted many, many edits by me and by other editors who have tried to improve the article, and has shown a very uncollaborative approach. PamD (talk) 22:09, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Other areas of contention have included:

My preference to split the Politics section into 3 paragraphs as it concerns 3 tiers of government
His insistence that the catholic church was "originally" called St Gregory The Great, while the references showed that this is still the formal name - he even said "read the references", though has now left my version in place after I forget how many reversals.
probably others, though it's difficult to see among the mass of edits. He has done a fantastic amount of work on this article, but more than one pair of eyes can improve an article and he has given the impression of strong reluctance to accept anyone else's ideas. PamD (talk) 22:20, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Hence, this is re. 1st cmt, before even reading the latter :In a word - yes. I appreciate, understand, and agree w/ most of the above. I also, at the same time, have some sympathy; I'm sure you, too, have sometimes felt like people were ripping your article apart - I know I have; it's quite a natural reaction. I'm doing all I can to smooth things out. We're all trying to make the article better, at the end of the day; I'd hope we could do it more collegially. That's not to say I'm ignoring what is happening; I'm not; I'm just trying my best to sort it out in the nicest way I can. Also - I said this to the other party, so I hope you won't find it condescending if I say it to you, 'coz we all need to remember: there's plenty of other articles, and sometimes it's best to step away from one for a short time. Chzz ► 22:21, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If the other editor's various comments about the GA process are correct, then it seems to be a "heads-up" to avoid going anywhere near an article whose main editor has nominated it for GA - to hold off from trying to help in any way - because the criteria are so rigid and inflexible and the convenience of the reader comes way down the list of priorities. Rather sad, but something to take away from this. I hadn't realised the extent to which the GA process is a closed world of GA experts, into which normal editors are not encouraged to venture. But maybe this is just the impression from one editor's attitude. I noinated a modest article I had created a few years ago, had useful discussions with GA assessor, improved it, and it passed. It's now being held up to be mocked: as far as I can see Leeds Country Way still meets the GA criteria, but perhaps there are super-criteria behind the scenes which are only known to the in-crowd! PamD (talk) 07:24, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That isn't a fair view of GA, no. Of course, YMMV and GA-standards are not, sadly, consistent - it depends on the reviewer. But the intention of the GA process is to try and help make the article better. I've reviewed quite a few GA's, and absolutely do all I can to encourage as many editors as possible to help out during the process; I go out of my way to seek assistance, and any/all is very welcome. The article does have to conform with various boring MOS things, but in an indirect way that also makes it a better read, and certainly there is room to ignore MOS as appropriate.

Mocking Leeds Country Way is totally inappropriate, because a comment such as [6] is totally non-constructive, just snippy. But, probably best just ignored, as long as there is no escalation of the non-constructive comments, and I am hoping things will calm down. As I write this, I haven't seen what's occurred in the past 8 hours or so, so my opinion there may change; my hope was to try and get the discussion back on-track; whether that is possible without shouting a bit remains to be seen.

Just being honest: If Leeds Country Way wasn't a GA now, was nominated for GA, and I reviewed it - it would need considerable improvement. From a brief look - some refs don't work (e.g. harewood.org [7] gives a 404, yorkshiretouristboard.net [8] seems dead); the lede is too short/doesn't summarize/contains facts that are not in the body (e.g. 62 miles around Leeds, never more than 7 miles Leeds CC), there are unreferenced facts (e.g. "a Norman motte and an Iron Age fort.", "Teams of twelve, with two runners taking each of six sections"). Those are some of the critical aspects I'd look for. That's a very cursory look; if I was to work with it, the main focus would be referencing (it always is), and it is rather short and may not be "broad in scope".

However, the article - like most - has the potential for improvement, and even in the above brief look, I hope that demonstrates that GAR process intends to constructively comment and work with the main editor (and others) to help improve things. Chzz ► 10:46, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

PamD, having now looked at things in more detail;

I have re-factored parts of the talk page. I'm cautious in any such re-factoring, and have tried very hard to do it within the guidelines, and to carefully note my actions both edit summaries and in marking sections appropriately. I hope it will help.
I have also made this statement on the user talk.

I sincerely hope that will get us back on-track. Please let me know if I overstep the mark, or any other comments on my facilitation. I have not disregarded the other editor's confrontational/unproductive/uncivil comments; at the moment, I'm saying 'please stop', but if that fails, I'll pursue it. Thanks for your cooperation, Chzz ► 12:03, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nice to see you, and a question

First, glad to see you back contributing again.

You single-handedly manage the help desk at times.

I have a question. I know you set up the Feedback page organization, and frankly, I don't fully understand how it works, except that it works quite well (OK, we can't get enough help, but the mechanics of the page are working nicely)

How, I note that Wikipedia:Feedback#Mekhis_Qandakeba, from late June and early July, seems "stuck". It shows up on the current day page every day. Any thoughts?--SPhilbrick T 12:28, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Requests should be placed on an appropriate day page. That request was put directly onto the page Wikipedia:Requests for feedback with this edit. I have moved it to the appropriate day-page, Wikipedia:Requests for feedback/2011 June 24 [9].

There is a separate page for each day, automatically created. The page Wikipedia:Requests for feedback automatically transcludes the past few days, and should therefore not actually contain requests. It's semi-protected, it has a very clear edit-notice, and a bold comment at the top and bottom of the page;

■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ STOP! ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■


*** PLEASE DO NOT ADD REQUESTS ON THIS PAGE ***

Despite all of that, fairly often people edit it. I have just moved about five other misplaced requests from that page [10]. Previously, I moved two on 27 July [11], another user moved one on 25 May [12], and 16 April [13].

The only way to actually stop it happening, I think, would be full-protection - and considering it needs to change quite rarely, perhaps that is appropriate? Cheers, Chzz ► 12:48, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That makes sense to me, so I did it. My protection message specifically mentions you. --SPhilbrick T 13:59, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fine by me, thanks. To be honest, it's unlikely that a non-admin other than me will ever need to edit it. Chzz ► 14:00, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Help Desk

It has already been oversighted, before which DMacks and I had RevDel'ed the two edits. :) Reaper Eternal (talk) 19:15, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'd seen that, thanks; I was also in discussions in the 'revdel' IRC chan. All good; thx, Chzz ► 19:17, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedcatchen

Its one da kids put up a blog bou wats happnin rite now. In that page wichis blocked to edit u shud put under causes about the girl that got beat up.

http://apoliticallyconcerned.blogspot.com/2011/08/fun-fact-not-being-mentioned-about.html

she was attacked by one of em with a baton after protestin bout da Star who got murderd. It was wat started the first riot. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Speedcatchen (talk • contribs) 15:58, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Request for mediation rejected

The request for formal mediation concerning Opposition to the legalisation of abortion, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.

For the Mediation Committee, AGK [•] 21:33, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)

Leap forward

Help Most thankful. Please excuse english. Want «archive» You understand examples other page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Chiang_Kai-shek/Archive_1 --108.14.202.122 (talk) 15:42, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I understand.

First, I am going back, adding removed content and signatures.

After that, I will set up archiving.

I am working on it. Thanks, Chzz ► 15:44, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Now done, I think. Chzz ► 16:28, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

		The Original Barnstar
		保持良好的工作 ! 108.14.202.122 (talk) 17:43, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GrantStation

Hi Chzz,

Permission is granted to ref the website - it is a neat story - Alaska wilderness-built company . . . . What should I do to get of the delete list?

Thank you, Ellen Emowrer18 (talk) 17:15, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The website states it is Copyright © 1999-2011, GrantStation.com, Inc. All rights reserved. ; permission could be granted via email, see WP:DCM however the current content would still not be acceptable, as it is not based on independent, reliable sources - see WP:VRS, WP:CORP and WP:FIRST. If you are involved with the organization, please read WP:COI and WP:BFAQ. Chzz ► 17:21, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Future

This case is not worse than that one? This applies to nominate? 187.116.55.122 (talk) 22:35, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes; but I give in; our policies fail here. I could redirect it; then someone would 'undo'; I oould PROD it, but, 7 days later it'd be removed; then I'd AfD it, and 7 days later it'd be appealed. By the time all the talk was done, the event would've happened, and it'd be notable. It seems there is no way to prevent us promoting it, or similar events. Chzz ► 22:40, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I have now nominated Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/No Surrender (2011). Chzz ► 17:53, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Swarcliffe

Thanks for your help here - the result seems to have gone from one extreme to the other as he seems to have "taken his bat home", while three editors gently tweak the article to improve it. I was surprised to find a couple of actual mis-copied figures in it - a death date out by 5 years and some muddled demographic figures. Perhaps it's the difference between music and geog - possibly also music editors go more for flourishes of language and geography editors for clear statements of facts ("bus timetables"). Thanks also for comments on Leeds Country Way! I had checked the External Links recently (and removed a dead one) but forgot to check the refs, and have updated a couple now. Might get round to generally improving it some time, though it's not easy to see how much "broad scope" is appropriate for the topic. Thanks again, PamD 15:03, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to have calmed down now, yes. Cheers, Chzz ► 17:55, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

article for creation/Creaxion

In the contribution I included information stating notable awards that Creaxion won as an agency. The agency continues to do work in Atlanta that is notable, which is why I thought the article was warranted. Anything else I can do to see it created? (Zanedharris (talk) 20:28, 11 August 2011 (UTC))[reply]

I haven't checked it in detail, but from a quick look, I'm not sure it shows "significant coverage in independent reliable sources" - that's the main requirement; it looks like a lot of the references are primary source. See WP:VRS, WP:CORP. If/when you think it's ready though, just submit it for a new review (as indicated in the box at the top). Good luck, Chzz ► 04:40, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

inre User:MichaelQSchmidt/Newcomer's guide to guidelines

You are cordially invited to User:MichaelQSchmidt/Newcomer's guide to guidelines as I feel its going live is imminent and I value additional eyes and input. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:57, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Death of Mark Duggan

How does BLP1E apply to a dead person?--Cerejota (talk) 04:14, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oops; I meant WP:BIO1E. Sorry. Chzz ► 04:21, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How does BIO1E apply to the article about an event? --Cerejota (talk) 04:42, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Because the significant event here is, the riots; hence, per BIO1E we don't need a separate article on the person, who played a very minor role within the notable event. Chzz ► 04:59, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article is not about the person (a bio), but his death (an event), Mark Duggan himself is BIO1E - doesn't warrant an article of his own and only mentioned as related to the event itself, his shooting death by police in the context of the riot it sparked is notable. In any case, the applicable policy would be WP:NEVENT, not BIO1E, wouldn't it?--Cerejota (talk) 09:23, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly, yes. It' my opinion that Duggan is only known for one, single event (his death), and that that event itself, as of now, is not notable; that the information would be more suited to the article on the riots. When referring to BIO1E, the specific part I mean is, When the role played by an individual in the event is less significant, an independent article may not be needed. In this case, it depends what we call "the event". I'm considering "the event" to be the riots of 2011, not the death of that person. I accept it is possible that, following investigations (which will no doubt occur), the actual 'death' event could warrant an article, but I don't believe that is the case as of now. Chzz ► 15:28, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We disagree in how to appreciate the event of Duggan's death. Prepare for head explosion (put plastic warp around you, hide pets, etc): this event is notable for a single event in itself. BOOM! Now seriously, the point is that a more valid argument for deletion would be WP:NEVENT, not BIO1E - because is events. I think it is absolutely correct that Mark Duggan is subject to BIO1E, in particular to be protected from what surely will be a series of sensationalistic revelations. But the centrality of his death to the subsequent riots - and how these riots will be viewed historically - implies they will be looked at with a microscope, and already are. WP:NOTNEWS: the news value of the news story of Mark Duggan's death is very low, but its encyclopedic value is huge - the historical perspective on the riots, its political context, the battles that generations to come will have on this topic, etc, will feature as an outsized part of the debate the circumstances of his death - the investigation, findings, upheavals in policing, etc. I do not have crystal balls, but I could see a number of encyclopedic entries linking to this case in the future, as law and rules on policing get reformed, as public debate happens, as Mark Duggan's death becomes a symbol of a set of broader politics, and gets scrutinized as such. You already see much debate as to if the riots were just or not based on the justness or not of the death - and that is but a preview. Lets contrast this fact to a clearly BIO1E case of the three guys that got run over by a car in the midst of a riot. That event doesn't deserve an article of its own, and doesn't deserve more than a few lines in the main article, because even if as a crime and at a human level - pain and sorrow - they are a much more tragic death, in an encyclopedic sense they are a footnote in a wider event (sometimes, encyclopedia writing is soul-crushing, man :/) In policy terms, I think this is a WP:SUMMARY of information that already is too much to include in the main article on the riots. You feel me? --Cerejota (talk) 17:21, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That deserves a considered response; there is "stuff I want to say". For now, please understand a) I don't have time to formulate such a response, b) I don't particularly care what happens in that specific case (re. that article); I've lodged my objection in the AfD, but it does look like consensus will keep it. If you'd like me to simply strike my opposition (in the interests of progress there, and per WP:FUCK) then I will do so; let me know. Regardless - I do intend to try and explain my deeper thoughts here surrounding the wider issue (viz. the policies and our actions in similar cases, not this one), and will try to do so ASAP. I apologize that my oppose in that specific AfD does not make my reasoning clear - and further apols that I have not elaborated upon it here, either, yet; I will, when I have the time. Best, Chzz ► 22:22, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Heads up

this thread might be of interest to you. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:18, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Re. Wikipedia:Deletion_review#Michael_Phelps_Foundation, Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Michael Phelps Foundation, MLT1989 (talk · contribs), 18:44, 7 August 2011 HJ Mitchell deleted "Michael Phelps Foundation" ‎ (G6: Housekeeping and routine (non-controversial) cleanup)

Thanks for letting me know about it. I've added what info I can [14], and I'll mention it to Sphil, too. Cheers, Chzz ► 15:17, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ACTRIAL

A discussion has started at the above linked page regarding the methods of implementation; one of the keys will be working on AfC. As you're the most active editor I can think of there, your input would be greatly appreciated. We haven't made this a hugely visible discussion yet, but if you know any other AfC regulars please also notify them of this. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 21:46, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Will do; thanks. This is a big deal; massive; and we need to do it right. Thanks for thinking of me; I'll contrib there ASAP. Chzz ► 22:16, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

c/f poking helpdesk; get used to the idea; [15] [16]

Thank you

Thank you for taking an interest in Kinetic Sculpture Race. I appreciate you removing the awards List from Baltimore. But I have a question. How could we include the idea of what the awards are given for without the list? The idea Tom-of-Baltimore had (and maybe didn't accomplish very well) is to show that they are both serious and wacky. Again thank you for your interest here. We still have that conflict of interest person User:Ebenezercore adding his name to the article but I am sure he will get tired of it eventually. I did what you said and put it on Conflict of Interest, but no one has done anything. With best wishes, A reasonably New Editor Ellin Beltz (talk) 01:22, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Let me put it this way;

I'm in England. I'm reading the article. If I wanted to check that e.g. "Awards at the Baltimore race are similar to those at the World Championship, includ[ed]: Best Speed" - how could I?

If that information is available in a reliable source - great.

However, if it is not, anyone could edit the article and say anything at all; "Awards at the Baltimore race [..] include [...] biggest sausage" - or whatever; we'd have no way to tell which was 'correct'.

The policy on verifiability applies here. Hence, if the list is published in a newspaper or some such, it could be part of the article; if not, it doesn't belong on Wikipedia. Chzz ► 01:30, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed and understood. No issues with you, your location or your edit. I will find an article that cites it, or cite it from the books about kinetics if it's ever needed/desired in the article. Thank you for all your help. I just added another dozen citations. The citation bot is going nuts on that page !! Ellin Beltz (talk) 01:43, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

202.59.80.153

please writ makka instead of Macca — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.59.80.153 (talk • contribs) 04:16, 14 July 2011

I'm sorry, I don't understand what you are asking. Chzz ► 07:39, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You

I appreciate your helpful input today. Certainly some food for thought.

Will be in touch.

Christopher M. Becker www.christopherbeckeronline.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by ChrisBeckerUSA (talk • contribs) 08:05, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK :-) Cheers, Chzz ► 08:06, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:adopt-a-typo Talk

Hey! Thank you for bringing that glaring talk issue into the picture. I believe I have fixed the problem, (with the title as well,) and if you have any more issues, ideas, or comments... I need all the help I can get.

P.S. Does Anyone ever press your boom button? I was sorely tempted, but refrained, barely. Majestic Pyre^{My Speech Bubble} 21:07, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously, nobody has ever pressed it yet, otherwise Wikipedia wouldn't be working. Chzz ► 10:58, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

La goutte de pluie on ANI

The section seems to have been archived. I'm not sure how to get it back. 218.186.12.10 (talk) 00:41, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for telling me; I've put it back, and postdated it to try and head off the archive-bot [17]. Chzz ► 00:49, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pointless barnstar

I like the pointless barnstar! Would you mind listing it on the Barnstars page? I hope the reason for giving a Pointless Barnstar is for any reason that doesn't merit a barnstar with points. Pine^talk 07:29, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine with me - help yourself, of course! I only made it as a 'one-off' thing, to congrat friends on a pointless achievement! But yes, absolutely - If you want to make it a template, sure, no problem at all :-) Chzz ► 11:48, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 15 August 2011

Women and Wikipedia: New Research, WikiChix

News and notes: Chapter funding and what skeptics and Latter Day Saints have in common

In the news: Wikipedia a "sausage fest", Chicago Wikipedians ("the people you've probably plagiarized"), and other silly season stories

WikiProject report: The Oregonians

Featured content: The best of the week

Arbitration report: Abortion case opened, two more still in progress

Technology report: Forks, upload slowness and mobile redirection

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 08:29, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pointless barnstar

I like the pointless barnstar! Would you mind listing it on the Barnstars page? I hope the reason for giving a Pointless Barnstar is for any reason that doesn't merit a barnstar with points. Pine^talk 07:29, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine with me - help yourself, of course! I only made it as a 'one-off' thing, to congrat friends on a pointless achievement! But yes, absolutely - If you want to make it a template, sure, no problem at all :-) Chzz ► 11:48, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

		The Pointless Barnstar
		I award you this barnstar for allowing public use of this barnstar! Pine^talk 10:17, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

-) Thanks very much! Just what I always wanted, heh! Chzz ► 17:42, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Newbie could do with guidance

Hi Chzz; I've noticed that you're one of the most helpful Wikipedians, whereas I have been criticised for being blunt. There's an editor Uksnapper (talk · contribs) who has been around for 5 years, but only has about 30 edits. This editor seems to be somewhat annoyed that most, if not all, of his edits have been reverted or amended out of all recognition, particularly those to Swan Shopping Centre. As far as I can see, they've all been violations of at least one or more of WP:NOR, WP:V, WP:NPOV. I'd like to help him but am afraid that I wouldn't word it in the most appropriate manner.

Do you think you could offer him some help please? --Redrose64 (talk) 12:31, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK; I've written this. Hope it helps. Chzz ► 14:15, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Smashing. I'd drafted something where the the first sentence was essentially the same as your first sentence, but then it drifted off course. Yours is much better than mine, thanks. --Redrose64 (talk) 14:36, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

{{Talkback|WP:HD|Split template does not generate a response}} Done Chzz ► 16:16, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Random questions

Hello, I'd like to have your opinion if you have the time. Lately, I've been thinking a lack of Wikipedia:Etiquette is a reason why people don't stick around here. I recently started a thread at ANI over someone's behavior, a type I thought could chase away good contributors (or editors with a chance of being good) but there wasn't much interest with my concerns. To me, the tread suggests vicious personal attacks are OK if others think it is directed at a likely COI editor. Is that a reasonable interpretation? And can you double-check me to make sure I didn't bite this person? Thanks. Jesanj (talk) 16:21, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tricky, complicated questions, really.

I definitely think that our often hostile approach is a reason that editors quit.

Regarding the specific ANI thread: I know it is now closed, and might not need further action, but - for cases like that - ANI probably isn't the best venue for that type of complaint; if discussions with the user fail to solve the concern, then WP:RFC/U could be more appropriate. Noting, here, that I know what a pain it is to bother with an RFC/U or taking other further action; the whole process is far too cumbersome, and it's a great pity that incivility (especially from more experienced editors) is not dealt with more efficiently.

In general, for COI editors, I think it is possible to be direct, without being hostile. Sometimes saying less is more; getting into a lengthy discussion sometimes causes escallation.

If you've said "don't do this for X reasons" and the user disagrees, then further discussion between the two of you (beyond clarification of reasons) is unlikely to solve things; instead, it might be better to stick to a plain warning, or get a discussion/consensus.

So, in that specific case - I don't think you did anything wrong, at all - but, a different approach might be more efficient; at the point where the user said, I definitely am not spamming., you could perhaps have started a thread on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine (which looks quite well-watched) - just stating the facts; X user has added Y as a ref on several articles [diff] [diff], and I don't think these are appropriate because <etc>" - and work towards a consensus with others, there. Discussion with others, and forming some kind of consensus, can help diffuse a difficult issue; it removes the 'personal'. HTH, Chzz ► 16:40, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I like your ideas. Thank you. Another short but tricky one I guess: why isn't hostility more of a blockable offense? Jesanj (talk) 16:51, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think, mostly, because opinions about what is/is not 'crossing the line' vary, and for more experienced editors it is easy enough to step around any attempt at a precise definition (such as a personal attack), but still make comments which we know are hostile (or at the least, unconstructive) but not quite enough to demonstrate are clear reasons to block with a few diffs - and others looking won't read pages and pages to glean the background. So, we get lots of sarcasm, or more subtle/low-level, insipid hostility. Plus, if questioned, the accusation itself can seem hostile. There's no magic answer, other than best advice, to just step away and forget about it for some hours/days. Chzz ► 16:57, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. What's preventing us from applying blocks in clearly hostile situations? (This is my long winded precursor to my question that I decided to put at the beginning.) I'm not torn up about the specific case, as the user did admit they could keep their cool better. And I doubt I'll ever want to start an RfC on the editor because I won't likely work with them much in the future. I'm more concerned with the big picture. Hostility appears to cause contributor loss without being addressed adequately. As an example, that editor in the ANI thread alleged the other was "a shameless self-promoter who created this page as a grotesque exercise in tedious autobiography ... who has gotten friends to act as meat puppets to monitor it and bully other voices off of it including using legal threats" before the case had been closed. (And I don't think anyone questioned my characterization of harassment.) To the "harassing" editor's credit, a legal-threat making sock was blocked, so the frustration can be understood. However, the quote I give is clearly hostile and inapropriate. Jesanj (talk) 17:15, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There's two important policy-points; that Blocks should be preventative, not punitive and that blocks intended solely to "cool down" an angry user should not be used (paraphrasing WP:PROT). Those key points are often used in RfA questions, and hence are drilled into admins, who are often reluctant to impose civility blocks except in the most clear-cut cases.

The ethos is, to 'turn the other cheek' - if a user simply ignores incivility, the problem disappears. Blocks are only to prevent damage and disruption to the encyclopaedia - and although there's an awful lot of ranting on talk pages, it rarely directly affects the quality of our articles. I do agree that we should strive for a collegiate environment, but there are all kinds of people here; some users who are very good at improving articles have attitude problems, and get angry. Often, soon afterwards, they may regret their actions - at which points it makes no sense to have them blocked, because they're not causing ongoing disruption. I do wish that everyone could be more friendly, but I don't think faster/more civility blocks will achieve that. People are frequently horribly impolite on the internet - it's certainly not a problem confined to Wikipedia. Perhaps all we can do is, -strive to be extra-polite, especially when in a disagreement, -try to calm disputes, -make extra effort to make new users welcome, -and, finally, to accept that not everyone is friendly; we can't fix that, but we can choose to avoid confrontation. Chzz ► 19:36, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your explanations have been very helpful. Thank you greatly. Jesanj (talk) 19:43, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Bonus ")"

Oooh, good spot. Must have been a typo. Fixed now :) - Jarry1250 ^{[Weasel? Discuss.]} 21:35, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Usurp fix

Thanks very much for working on the usurp issue. The cloak has now been granted. My biggest issue at the moment is the usurp request on Commons. Pine^talk 09:36, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(Ref. Commons:Commons:Changing_username/Usurp_requests#GreenPine_.E2.86.92_Pine)

Ew, yeah. 2 months+, that's a bit crazy. Chzz ► 13:10, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

References in Bill O'Neill (media) page

Following your message I attempted to work on the references. It doesn't look right. Could you have a look at it and tell me what I did wrong or what I haven't done. Thanx. Wolfeton (talk) 17:36, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

When editing, you put the references directly after the fact - not in the "references" section.

There are two references in Bill O'Neill (media) which are working - if you edit the page, you'll see that it looks like this;

Until his retirement in 2002, he continued in his role as News Corporation's Executive Vice President of Human Resources. He left the company exactly 50 years from the day he started on the Sydney ''Daily Mirror'' as a 15-year-old apprentice.<ref>{{Cite news|url=http://www.printweek.com/news/426773/Wapping-dispute-boss-retires/|title=Wapping dispute boss retires|publisher=[[Printweek]]|date=18 January 2002}}</ref>

You put the reference in-between <ref> and </ref> directly after each fact. The system then automatically shows them as a small number, which links to the 'references' section.

Note - they have to begin with <ref>, and end with </ref>.

You don't have to use {{Cite news}} - if you want to keep it simple, just put the details between the <ref> and the </ref> - like, for example, this;

O'Neill likes sausages.<ref>Who's Who (in Britain) 2001-2011, A and C Black, London</ref>

For more info, see WP:REFB. Hope that helps? Chzz ► 17:53, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

References. Bill O'Neill (media)

I worked on compiling sources in the Reference section but they don't look right. Could you have a look at that page and tell me what do I need to do. Thanx. Wolfeton (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:35, 17 August 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Please see the reply directly above this one. Chzz ► 18:37, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

William Lipscomb External Links edit - Oops

When you moved the external links section on the William Lipscomb page it wound up between references 78 and 79. Oops. Please fix. It is not proper for me to edit this page. jslipscomb (talk) 23:06, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for fixing. Looks good. jslipscomb (talk) 00:14, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"move external links per MOS:SECTIONS"

You'll have a lot more fun if you click on Random article. Drmies (talk) 02:24, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

:-) Chzz ► 02:26, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	"Move external links per MOS:SECTIONS"--you go and move those sections, Chzz. No one can do it quite like you. Drmies (talk) 02:30, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, thanks very much! It's semi-auto, of course; I've done, I think, maybe 1,000 - but there's a few errors (I've seen about 10, maybe); I'm trying to check and fix those, and tweak it, etc. Chzz ► 02:37, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Questions

Please have a look at Wikipedia:Help desk#Problems with two references in article. Thank you very much. --Peoplefromarizona (talk) 09:20, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know; I've responded there - and I'll check back; alternatively (as the discussion on HD might scroll off the page), you're welcome to ask more here. Cheers, Chzz ► 17:46, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

IRC issues

I'm not sure whether you saw my private message on-IRC, so apologies if you're already aware of it. I would like to talk to you about the issues you observed in #wikipedia-en-help, if you don't mind.¹ (Even if 123Hedgehog456's proposal does not bring any change in the management of IRC, I think improving the help channel is something that can and should be worked on, if someone has observed issues.) I prefer the instantaneous nature of IRC, but if you would like to do this on the record on-wiki, that's fine by me. Please leave a reply or /query me on IRC if you're interested. Thanks.

1: I realise you may be sick and tired of the whole debacle, so if you'd rather not talk to me, I'd understand. wctaiwan (talk) 15:02, 19 August 2011 (UTC) wc[reply]

Hi, I'm quite happy to talk, and I'm on IRC almost all the time - so I imagine we'll catch up there, pretty soon (I'll keep an eye out), cheers, Chzz ► 15:31, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Chzzbot II is misbehaving?

Just for fun, I was reading the request for bot approval for Chzzbot II; if I understood it rightly, the final form of the bot was supposed to run hourly, but it just edited twice in less than an hour: 10:54 and 11:35. It's definitely not hurting anything, but if I'm reading the bot request rightly, it's slightly misbehaving. Nyttend (talk) 11:40, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi.. It does two separate things; a) it makes sure the heading stays in place (continuously), b) clears the pages (hourly, on the hour). Except if someone has just edited, or if someone keeps removing the header - in which case, it backs off for some time to avoid edit-warring.

Both diffs you showed were a) - in the first, someone removed the heading at 10:49 [18] so, the bot reinserted it a few minutes later; in the second, when you put a db at the top [19] at 11:35, the bot put the heading back almost immediately.

Note, in both those cases, it didn't remove anything - just put the header back.

An examples of the hourly clearing is [20].

Those features were agreed upon in the BRFA, and is also explained on User:ChzzBot II/doc. Hope that helps? Cheers, Chzz ► 15:25, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks for the clarification; I thought there was only one feature, both cleaning and restoring the header. Sorry for nominating your userpage for speedy as an attack page; it was a copy/paste error. Nyttend (talk) 23:48, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Careful! Edit conflicts

I'm sure this was an accident, but be careful when editing through conflicts: [21] causa sui (talk) 00:28, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That ec was not reported to me; there's no way I missed it. I apologize, but.. I swear to FSM it didn't show me an EC. I am very careful about such things, and apologize unreservedly; that is certainly an anomaly. I really believe I did no wrong, and would never do anything like that; however, I can't prove it was "software fail" thus accept consequences, and beg forgiveness. Chzz ► 00:34, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Deletion_review#Michael_Phelps_Foundation

Let me know what you think of my comments.--Cerejota (talk) 18:15, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's all a bit odd. I tend to step back, and consider the content of the article; to me, the proposed AFC [22] was a "viable article", which is why (just trying to help) I asked for prot removal - so that, if accepted, it'd be easy. But, the subsequent deletion/DRV seemed to run away with talk of socks. I can understand the concerns there, but I also worry we forget about *content* - as far as I'm concerned, dealing with any problematic editors should be separated from that. However, I don't feel strongly enough to shout about it. Chzz ► 01:44, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

William Lipscomb further edits

I agree with you completely that on the William Lipscomb page

the science is too deep;
some paragraphs should be moved to their subject pages.
Also, it really needs some personal biography of Lipscomb.

Thanks to your interest I added a list of paragraphs to move and where they should go to the Talk:William Lipscomb page in the "Is this a biography" section.

Above that I already have listed items to possibly remove. Below that I give instructions for doing a personal biography of Lipscomb from his extended autobiography online, an easy job that anyone can do.

But who? Perhaps someone kind.

Or I'd be willing to do these myself, but I cannot touch the William Lipscomb page again until I am cleared of the suspicion of impropriety. See at the top of the William Lipscomb page, "A major contributor to this article appears to have a close connection with its subject. It may require cleanup to comply with Wikipedia's content policies, particularly neutral point of view." That banner will have to go, notwithstanding that nobody has pointed to anything non-neutral that I have done on the page, which might make one wonder. Perhaps some kind person might remove the banner and add a note to User talk:Jslipscomb clearing me to proceed.

Sorry, I did not have anything to do with Watson, but in 10 years in IBM Research I did do some cool stuff.

jslipscomb (talk) 23:16, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Online Ambassadors: Time to join pods

Hello! If you're planning to be an active Online Ambassador for the upcoming academic term, now is the time to join one or more pods. (A pod consists of the instructor, the Campus Ambassadors, and the Online Ambassadors for single class.) The Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) explains the expectations for being part of a pod as an Online Ambassador. (The MOU for pods in Canada is essentially the same.) In short, the role of Online Ambassadors this term consists of:

Working closely with the instructor and Campus Ambassadors, providing advice and perspective as an experienced Wikipedian
Helping students who ask for it (or helping them to find the help they need)
Watching out for the class as a whole
Helping students to get community feedback on their work

This replaces the 1-on-1 mentoring role for Online Ambassadors that we had in previous terms; rather than being responsible for individual students (some of whom don't want or help or are unresponsive), Online Ambassadors will be there to help whichever students in their class(es) ask for help.

You can browse the upcoming courses here: United States; Canada. More are being added as new pods become active and create their course pages.

Once you've found a class that you want to work with—especially if you some interest or expertise in the topic area—you should sign the MOU listing for that class and get in touch with the instructor. We're hoping to have at least two Online Ambassadors per pod, and more for the larger classes.

If you're up for supporting any kind of class and would like me to assign you to a pod in need of more Online Ambassadors, just let me know.

--Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 16:31, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

PS: There are still a lot of student articles from the last term that haven't been rated. Please rate a few and update the list!

Hatting chill section

Yo Chzz, can we unhat it for 24 hours just to see if it works? I won't revert your hat if you want to keep it that way but I'd be interested to see if it promoted collegiality and I don't think it was left very long. Ta, Egg Centric 00:30, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Re. which page? Chzz ► 01:46, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ooh, sorry; you meant Talk:Anders_Behring_Breivik#The_Chill_Section? I guess it's a bit late now, because discussion seems to have continued there. I'm sorry; I just thought it was too far off-topic to be productive; but I'm absolutely in favour of keeping things calm; sorry if I detracted from that effort. Chzz ► 04:26, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No worries

Egg Centric 18:28, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Chzz. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/La goutte de pluie.
Message added 05:34, 20 August 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

OpenInfoForAll (talk) 05:34, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ram Dulari Sinha

How can you!!!!!!!!!! the article is rated by the readership as 5.0 (REPEAT 5.0) in all categories; so is being and will be going on and forward as being one of the very BEST MOST FAMOUS articles about SOME MOST VERY FAMOUS FAILED POLITICIANS on Wikipedia. PS have to take my frustration out somewhere! Cheers (Crusoe8181 (talk) 10:41, 20 August 2011 (UTC)).[reply]

Well look – an example article on why the Feedback tool isn't exactly the best measurement of an article's quality. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 17:47, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Um. All I did was move the links to the end [23] O_O Chzz ► 17:58, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Anders_Behring_Breivik#Just_disgusted

I wanted to say that even tho we were in different sides of that discussion (and would probably remain so, although I hope one day you will see the light :P), you comments on that thread (and that of others), were spot-on. Just like I am not a WP:NOTNEWS fundamentalist, I do believe there is a need to sanitize the project of this tendency to basically have a variation of Rule 34 on content "If it exists, there must be a wikipedia article of it", and the extreme abuse of dead horses that results from not accepting the results of a delete consensus. You think this is fixable (via clarification of policy?) or all we have left is an eternal need for these battles to repeat? --Cerejota (talk) 19:53, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with lots of Wikipedia guidelines, and several points of policy; however, we need to abide by consensus; if some policy/guideline is "wrong", that needs to be discussed on the appropriate fora.

I believe we should have articles on anything and everything with significant independent coverage; but BLP1E/BIO1E is an exception to that, and to me it makes sense, because it prevents us breaching NOTNEWS by presenting information about people without the media giving historical perspective; however, clearly many people disagree with my interpretation of those policies.

I think we'd have made much better progress on this set of articles if we'd concentrated on the incident, not the person - as was said in the AfD; however, we do need to abide by consensus. Whether or not any clearer policy/guide can be made...I'm not sure; I have been thinking that "1E" needs clarification. Chzz ► 03:48, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality

As you have not once warned the other editors about their behaviour on the Swarcliffe article, but insist on warning me, I find your attitude to be anything but neutral. You are failing in your duty as an Admin, and I wish you could be fair, as your actions are one-sided. I do not say this lightly, but as one who believes in a neutral point of view, I believe in equal treatment for all. If you wish to complain about this message, it would be nice to hear from a neutral Admin. I thank you.--andreasegde (talk) 03:32, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not an admin.

If I saw some action by another editor that I thought warranted a message, I would issue one. Chzz ► 03:34, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're not an admin? Then why do you issue warnings so often? You certainly act as if you are. The editors on the Swarcliffe article should adjust their behaviour, and your behaviour is very one-sided. Their mistakes are rife, and you should, at least, ask them to use the Preview button. You do not do this, and it seems that you are not interested, apart from issuing warnings. Please prove me wrong, and warn them about edits that are grammatically incorrect.--andreasegde (talk) 04:58, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How does one act like an admin? Admins are users with a few extra buttons, which they got after sitting in a torture chamber for a week. There is nothing to say that non-admins cannot deliver warnings, and for the sake of discussion, Chzz has more community trust/support/pull/whatever than many admins do. Sven Manguard Wha? 05:03, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do you know about the conflict? Your support of Chzz is admirable, but maybe quite a few Admins would not agree.--andreasegde (talk) 05:08, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Swarcliffe debacle? Yes, I know about it, and have chosen to stay away from it. Sven Manguard Wha? 05:17, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you are unwilling to take part, does that not exclude you from the debate?--andreasegde (talk) 05:21, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, it dosen't. Just because I've chosen not to edit the page does not mean that a) I haven't read up on the situation, or b) that I'm not allowed to step in at any time. From my reading of the situation, Chzz seems like he's working awfully hard at making sure that the entire thing dosen't burst into flames, and he's repeatedly had to remind other people at that page to drop the ad hominem attacks. I doubt you'd find a single uninvolved admin willing to peg Chzz as the problem here, let alone take action against him. Sven Manguard Wha? 05:24, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ask him this one question: how many times has he warned the other editors about the Swarcliffe page? Has he ever given them a warning, or even a mild piece of advice about their edits? I would love to be proven wrong about this.--andreasegde (talk) 05:37, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[24] Chzz ► 05:39, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[25] Sven Manguard Wha? 05:42, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[26] Chzz ► 05:46, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Marvellous, and I thank you, even though the comments were not on the editors' talk pages but on the Swarcliffe page. I wonder why I deserved the special treatment?--andreasegde (talk) 05:49, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The first example was. Chzz ► 05:51, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're right. It said, "I don't see any major problem here, and I hope we can work together to sort things out". That was a warning, wasn't it?--andreasegde (talk) 05:54, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It gets better: "I'd appreciate your help and patience with that, being extra-careful to discuss anything controversial or disputed, before repeating edits (as I'm sure you will). Cheers,"--andreasegde (talk) 05:55, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That looks awfully like exactly the "mild piece of advice about their edits" you were looking for, yes? Sven Manguard Wha? 05:56, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It looks "awfully like" collusion to me. Go on, tell me I'm wrong.--andreasegde (talk) 05:58, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

An AN/I thread has been opened up regarding this thread and the article it relates to. Sven Manguard Wha? 06:13, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Marvellous. I welcome it.--andreasegde (talk) 06:15, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unexpected results?

Hi Chzz, I see that you are making multiple edits with the summary "move external links per MOS:SECTIONS". While this seems to be working well in most cases, it seems to have had an unexpected result in this case where it has moved the external links section into the navbox. Cheers, Bahudhara (talk) 08:01, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yep; there have been a small number of cases causing problems; I'm checking though - thanks for telling me about that one. Chzz ► 08:02, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I really bothers me to feel that I'm chewing out a valued contributor, but it's more than just a small number, and this is the second day in a row that I've had to come behind you on MANY. At the rate you're editing, it would appear that you're running a bot, and it has me a bit concerned. -- WikHead (talk) 08:58, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry; I was trying to check through all of them - and saw several that you'd already corrected; I didn't notice the cite errors with refs in EL from the quick checks I was doing. But, I accept that there were several other incorrect cases, too. I'll certainly slow down, and check much more carefully, if I decide to carry on with the external-link fixing. Thanks for letting me know. Chzz ► 15:48, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

From my experiences with addressing MOS:APPENDIX, I've noticed that refs and/or ref calls are very commonly found in the EL section or areas below. It's obvious that we both know very well that they shouldn't be there, but they often require a little extra manipulation to avoid leaving behind something worse than what we started with. Best of luck to you, and happy editing. :) -- WikHead (talk) 16:45, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you're quite right. About the first 300 I changed didn't have that problem (probably just coincidentally), and I became lazy, by only checking what had been moved using popups - hence, not spotting the ref error. Now I know about it, it's easy to avoid. Still, being cautious, if I carry on I'll be checking each individual change (immediately I make it), until I'm a lot more confident. Again, I'm sorry for any trouble I caused you. Cheers, Chzz ► 16:48, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Amid all the troubles and strife of life...

...a fun-size lion for you!

Nortonius (talk) 17:24, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, thx; reminds me of Lion Bars :-) Hope you and your lobsters are well. Chzz ► 01:55, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Deletion_review#Michael_Phelps_Foundation

Let me know what you think of my comments.--Cerejota (talk) 18:15, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's all a bit odd. I tend to step back, and consider the content of the article; to me, the proposed AFC [27] was a "viable article", which is why (just trying to help) I asked for prot removal - so that, if accepted, it'd be easy. But, the subsequent deletion/DRV seemed to run away with talk of socks. I can understand the concerns there, but I also worry we forget about *content* - as far as I'm concerned, dealing with any problematic editors should be separated from that. However, I don't feel strongly enough to shout about it. Chzz ► 01:44, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

William Lipscomb further edits

I agree with you completely that on the William Lipscomb page

the science is too deep;
some paragraphs should be moved to their subject pages.
Also, it really needs some personal biography of Lipscomb.

Thanks to your interest I added a list of paragraphs to move and where they should go to the Talk:William Lipscomb page in the "Is this a biography" section.

Above that I already have listed items to possibly remove. Below that I give instructions for doing a personal biography of Lipscomb from his extended autobiography online, an easy job that anyone can do.

But who? Perhaps someone kind.

Or I'd be willing to do these myself, but I cannot touch the William Lipscomb page again until I am cleared of the suspicion of impropriety. See at the top of the William Lipscomb page, "A major contributor to this article appears to have a close connection with its subject. It may require cleanup to comply with Wikipedia's content policies, particularly neutral point of view." That banner will have to go, notwithstanding that nobody has pointed to anything non-neutral that I have done on the page, which might make one wonder. Perhaps some kind person might remove the banner and add a note to User talk:Jslipscomb clearing me to proceed.

Sorry, I did not have anything to do with Watson, but in 10 years in IBM Research I did do some cool stuff.

jslipscomb (talk) 23:16, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Online Ambassadors: Time to join pods

Hello! If you're planning to be an active Online Ambassador for the upcoming academic term, now is the time to join one or more pods. (A pod consists of the instructor, the Campus Ambassadors, and the Online Ambassadors for single class.) The Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) explains the expectations for being part of a pod as an Online Ambassador. (The MOU for pods in Canada is essentially the same.) In short, the role of Online Ambassadors this term consists of:

Working closely with the instructor and Campus Ambassadors, providing advice and perspective as an experienced Wikipedian
Helping students who ask for it (or helping them to find the help they need)
Watching out for the class as a whole
Helping students to get community feedback on their work

This replaces the 1-on-1 mentoring role for Online Ambassadors that we had in previous terms; rather than being responsible for individual students (some of whom don't want or help or are unresponsive), Online Ambassadors will be there to help whichever students in their class(es) ask for help.

You can browse the upcoming courses here: United States; Canada. More are being added as new pods become active and create their course pages.

Once you've found a class that you want to work with—especially if you some interest or expertise in the topic area—you should sign the MOU listing for that class and get in touch with the instructor. We're hoping to have at least two Online Ambassadors per pod, and more for the larger classes.

If you're up for supporting any kind of class and would like me to assign you to a pod in need of more Online Ambassadors, just let me know.

--Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 16:31, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

PS: There are still a lot of student articles from the last term that haven't been rated. Please rate a few and update the list!

Hatting chill section

Yo Chzz, can we unhat it for 24 hours just to see if it works? I won't revert your hat if you want to keep it that way but I'd be interested to see if it promoted collegiality and I don't think it was left very long. Ta, Egg Centric 00:30, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Re. which page? Chzz ► 01:46, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ooh, sorry; you meant Talk:Anders_Behring_Breivik#The_Chill_Section? I guess it's a bit late now, because discussion seems to have continued there. I'm sorry; I just thought it was too far off-topic to be productive; but I'm absolutely in favour of keeping things calm; sorry if I detracted from that effort. Chzz ► 04:26, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No worries

Egg Centric 18:28, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Chzz. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/La goutte de pluie.
Message added 05:34, 20 August 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

OpenInfoForAll (talk) 05:34, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ram Dulari Sinha

How can you!!!!!!!!!! the article is rated by the readership as 5.0 (REPEAT 5.0) in all categories; so is being and will be going on and forward as being one of the very BEST MOST FAMOUS articles about SOME MOST VERY FAMOUS FAILED POLITICIANS on Wikipedia. PS have to take my frustration out somewhere! Cheers (Crusoe8181 (talk) 10:41, 20 August 2011 (UTC)).[reply]

Well look – an example article on why the Feedback tool isn't exactly the best measurement of an article's quality. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 17:47, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Um. All I did was move the links to the end [28] O_O Chzz ► 17:58, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Anders_Behring_Breivik#Just_disgusted

I wanted to say that even tho we were in different sides of that discussion (and would probably remain so, although I hope one day you will see the light :P), you comments on that thread (and that of others), were spot-on. Just like I am not a WP:NOTNEWS fundamentalist, I do believe there is a need to sanitize the project of this tendency to basically have a variation of Rule 34 on content "If it exists, there must be a wikipedia article of it", and the extreme abuse of dead horses that results from not accepting the results of a delete consensus. You think this is fixable (via clarification of policy?) or all we have left is an eternal need for these battles to repeat? --Cerejota (talk) 19:53, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with lots of Wikipedia guidelines, and several points of policy; however, we need to abide by consensus; if some policy/guideline is "wrong", that needs to be discussed on the appropriate fora.

I believe we should have articles on anything and everything with significant independent coverage; but BLP1E/BIO1E is an exception to that, and to me it makes sense, because it prevents us breaching NOTNEWS by presenting information about people without the media giving historical perspective; however, clearly many people disagree with my interpretation of those policies.

I think we'd have made much better progress on this set of articles if we'd concentrated on the incident, not the person - as was said in the AfD; however, we do need to abide by consensus. Whether or not any clearer policy/guide can be made...I'm not sure; I have been thinking that "1E" needs clarification. Chzz ► 03:48, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality

As you have not once warned the other editors about their behaviour on the Swarcliffe article, but insist on warning me, I find your attitude to be anything but neutral. You are failing in your duty as an Admin, and I wish you could be fair, as your actions are one-sided. I do not say this lightly, but as one who believes in a neutral point of view, I believe in equal treatment for all. If you wish to complain about this message, it would be nice to hear from a neutral Admin. I thank you.--andreasegde (talk) 03:32, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not an admin.

If I saw some action by another editor that I thought warranted a message, I would issue one. Chzz ► 03:34, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're not an admin? Then why do you issue warnings so often? You certainly act as if you are. The editors on the Swarcliffe article should adjust their behaviour, and your behaviour is very one-sided. Their mistakes are rife, and you should, at least, ask them to use the Preview button. You do not do this, and it seems that you are not interested, apart from issuing warnings. Please prove me wrong, and warn them about edits that are grammatically incorrect.--andreasegde (talk) 04:58, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How does one act like an admin? Admins are users with a few extra buttons, which they got after sitting in a torture chamber for a week. There is nothing to say that non-admins cannot deliver warnings, and for the sake of discussion, Chzz has more community trust/support/pull/whatever than many admins do. Sven Manguard Wha? 05:03, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do you know about the conflict? Your support of Chzz is admirable, but maybe quite a few Admins would not agree.--andreasegde (talk) 05:08, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Swarcliffe debacle? Yes, I know about it, and have chosen to stay away from it. Sven Manguard Wha? 05:17, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you are unwilling to take part, does that not exclude you from the debate?--andreasegde (talk) 05:21, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, it dosen't. Just because I've chosen not to edit the page does not mean that a) I haven't read up on the situation, or b) that I'm not allowed to step in at any time. From my reading of the situation, Chzz seems like he's working awfully hard at making sure that the entire thing dosen't burst into flames, and he's repeatedly had to remind other people at that page to drop the ad hominem attacks. I doubt you'd find a single uninvolved admin willing to peg Chzz as the problem here, let alone take action against him. Sven Manguard Wha? 05:24, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ask him this one question: how many times has he warned the other editors about the Swarcliffe page? Has he ever given them a warning, or even a mild piece of advice about their edits? I would love to be proven wrong about this.--andreasegde (talk) 05:37, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[29] Chzz ► 05:39, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[30] Sven Manguard Wha? 05:42, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[31] Chzz ► 05:46, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Marvellous, and I thank you, even though the comments were not on the editors' talk pages but on the Swarcliffe page. I wonder why I deserved the special treatment?--andreasegde (talk) 05:49, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The first example was. Chzz ► 05:51, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're right. It said, "I don't see any major problem here, and I hope we can work together to sort things out". That was a warning, wasn't it?--andreasegde (talk) 05:54, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It gets better: "I'd appreciate your help and patience with that, being extra-careful to discuss anything controversial or disputed, before repeating edits (as I'm sure you will). Cheers,"--andreasegde (talk) 05:55, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That looks awfully like exactly the "mild piece of advice about their edits" you were looking for, yes? Sven Manguard Wha? 05:56, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It looks "awfully like" collusion to me. Go on, tell me I'm wrong.--andreasegde (talk) 05:58, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

An AN/I thread has been opened up regarding this thread and the article it relates to. Sven Manguard Wha? 06:13, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Marvellous. I welcome it.--andreasegde (talk) 06:15, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unexpected results?

Hi Chzz, I see that you are making multiple edits with the summary "move external links per MOS:SECTIONS". While this seems to be working well in most cases, it seems to have had an unexpected result in this case where it has moved the external links section into the navbox. Cheers, Bahudhara (talk) 08:01, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yep; there have been a small number of cases causing problems; I'm checking though - thanks for telling me about that one. Chzz ► 08:02, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I really bothers me to feel that I'm chewing out a valued contributor, but it's more than just a small number, and this is the second day in a row that I've had to come behind you on MANY. At the rate you're editing, it would appear that you're running a bot, and it has me a bit concerned. -- WikHead (talk) 08:58, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry; I was trying to check through all of them - and saw several that you'd already corrected; I didn't notice the cite errors with refs in EL from the quick checks I was doing. But, I accept that there were several other incorrect cases, too. I'll certainly slow down, and check much more carefully, if I decide to carry on with the external-link fixing. Thanks for letting me know. Chzz ► 15:48, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

From my experiences with addressing MOS:APPENDIX, I've noticed that refs and/or ref calls are very commonly found in the EL section or areas below. It's obvious that we both know very well that they shouldn't be there, but they often require a little extra manipulation to avoid leaving behind something worse than what we started with. Best of luck to you, and happy editing. :) -- WikHead (talk) 16:45, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you're quite right. About the first 300 I changed didn't have that problem (probably just coincidentally), and I became lazy, by only checking what had been moved using popups - hence, not spotting the ref error. Now I know about it, it's easy to avoid. Still, being cautious, if I carry on I'll be checking each individual change (immediately I make it), until I'm a lot more confident. Again, I'm sorry for any trouble I caused you. Cheers, Chzz ► 16:48, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Amid all the troubles and strife of life...

...a fun-size lion for you!

Nortonius (talk) 17:24, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, thx; reminds me of Lion Bars :-) Hope you and your lobsters are well. Chzz ► 01:55, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You've got mail

Hello, Chzz. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.— -- WikHead (talk) 08:49, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 22 August 2011

News and notes: Girl Geeks edit while they dine, candidates needed for forthcoming steward elections, image referendum opens

In the news: Journalist regrets not checking citation, PR firms issue advice on how to "survive" Wikipedia (but U.S. Congressman caught red-handed)

WikiProject report: Images in Motion – WikiProject Animation

Featured content: JJ Harrison on avian photography

Arbitration report: After eleven moves, name for islands now under arbitration

Technology report: Engineering report, sprint, and more testers needed

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 23:21, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Chizzie

We desperately need an article about the "scallywags" and we miss you; can you solve these two problems?
Much wikilove from Wasbeer 13:23, 24 August 2011 (UTC) p.s. Vive la Révolution![reply]

I can solve the first; see Auxiliary Units; a DAB is probably needed - note Talk:Auxiliary_Units#."Scallywagging", etc.. See also QI. Chzz ► 20:09, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Requests for feedback

Hello, Chzz. You have new messages at Sphilbrick's talk page.
Message added SPhilbrick T 10:17, 27 August 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Answered via emails Chzz ► 22:37, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
	Thank you for creating the help page for us and for training us in Boston! Lsukari (talk) 20:59, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thx Chzz ► 22:37, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Could you check my work?

I've just "been bold" with a major edit of the IEEE CS page, which I hope addresses all your suggestions (for which much thanks). It takes me a long time to respond because (a) I'm old and generally slow and (b) the rules here seem incredibly daunting. I'm trying to do the right thing toward getting the flags removed the page and then will be glad to turn this work over to other nonCOI editors, including the world at large. I think it is now fairly neutral and definitely accurate and verified. Thanks, Cecilialw (talk) 23:42, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm taking a break, but - be bold. It is tagged as "This article may contain original research" - if you think that is not true, remove the line that says "{{Original research|date=May 2010}}".

It also says, "This article needs additional citations for verification" - again, if you think that is no longer true, remove the line causing it - which is, "{{Refimprove|date=August 2010}}".

You can get help with any/all of it; just create a new section on your own talk page, put {{helpme}} (just like that), and a question.

Sorry, I can't help directly much more - because I'm taking a break from Wikipedia (indefinitely). Best, Chzz ► 22:36, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You've been terrific. I hope you're well and having fun on your break. Thanks again.Cecilialw (talk) 22:33, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Newbie could do with more guidance

Hi, following on from User talk:Chzz/Archive 33#Newbie could do with guidance - this newbie clearly has some sort of problem, although I'm at a loss to know what it is exactly. His recent postings have all been to the bottom of Wikipedia talk:WikiProject West Midlands, and since they related to a section higher up the page, I moved his post, and in all but the last case, have left my own reply. But in the last case, I'm stuck as to what is best for me to put. Any help would be appreciated. Thanks. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:43, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(Talk page stalker.) You might not know that you might not get a quick reply. Chzz is on an indefinite break. Jesanj (talk) 16:46, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh dear, I do hope it's not serious - last time was for about four months. --Redrose64 (talk) 17:06, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sandbox

[32] The bot put two sandbox headers on the page. -- $Σ talk contribs$ 18:51, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not quite. The page actually did contain {{Sandbox heading}}, but it was interspersed with comments - ie, {{Sand ... etc.

The bot removed the comments (seen as spurious copies of the 'normal' heading), but failed to remove the obfuscated template, before reinserting the standard header. It does check for duplicate templates, but doesn't check for ones that have hidden text (ie 'comments') within them.

It's a pretty unusual case - but, I'll make a note and maybe add a fix one day when updating the code.

Thanks for letting me know. Chzz ► 23:43, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Happy talk like a pirate day!

Arghh!!! :P Meh. Hope you're having a nice break :) /ƒETCH COMMS / 22:22, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]